2009 (4) TMI 364

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt case, the proceedings were based on an earlier decision of the Respondent in the case of Craft Interiors case in Order-in-Original dated 22/24 September, 2003. The said order initially was upheld by the Tribunal vide order reported in 2005 (187) E.L.T. 113. However, the Tribunal's order was set aside by the Apex Court in Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [2006 (203) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.)] remanding the case to the Tribunal. The Tribunal eventually held in favour of the party to the effect that storage units, running counters, kitchen units and other items, which cannot be removed except by cannibalization are not excisable goods and are immovable property. The said decision is reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 429 (T). In the above circumstances,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [2002 (146) E.L.T. 29 (S.C.)], CCE v. Hyderabad Race Club [1996 (88) E.L.T. 633 (S.C.)] and Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v. CCE [2000 (120) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.)]. Therefore the impugned order is wrong. Our attention was invited to Board Circular dated 15-1-2002 and 19-4-1989, in terms of which the contemporaneous understanding of the law of the CBEC is also that sitework of erection, installation and assembly resulting in immovable property are not excisable. The above circulars are binding on the Respondent as per Apex Court rulings in several cases, including Ranadey Micronutrients v. CCE [1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.)] and Paper Products case [1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.)]. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. (v) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itchen erection at site not being excisable being immovable property, the question of payment of any adjudication levies would not arise. The classification of the same under CETH 9403 also fails. (viii) The movables such as shoe racks, cots, tables, study units, side tables and living units are within SSI exemption limits, and this has been conceded by both the appellant and respondent at Para 32 of the impugned order, holding that "however there is no dispute………and the noticee fairly concedes that they are liable to duty but no demand arises because their total turnover excluding the turnover on account of ……..dies bit cross the threshold limit of Rs.100 lakh provided for SSI undertakings." (ix) The question of levy of interes....